Seriously, make face masks the new style. Anyone in the fashion industry want to make a political stand and also get a shit-ton of news coverage for their label? Supermodels in masks at a show in canada.

Think they'd mind if we requested every police officer's badge number be visible instead of kept in their pocket?

EDIT: To the replies below -- yes, it is a law in the U.S., and you're hitting my point that was pretty masked by sarcasm: that most officers during the OWS protests were photographed with their badge numbers either taped over or removed completely, usually "for their protection."

There are regulations that the police need to show their ID - however in the US, in Canada, in the UK and many other places, police freely cover their ID (or wear duplicate ID) whenever they don't want to be identified - and they aggressively crack down on photographing the police.

The claim is reasonable in my view - if it were made illegal to hide your identity at a legal protest (it's already illegal to hide your identity for the purposes of a riot or other illegal act) then the exact same criminal penalties should apply any time a police officer hides their identity while legally enacting their job.

Also in Denmark. The Police has often used that law as an excuse to attack demonstrations. If they want to stop a demonstration for some reason or other, they will just say that there were at least one masked person there.

That is exactly what will happen. What is supposedly intended to stop criminals from wearing masks, becomes "he was wearing a mask so he intended to commit a crime." The first makes sense, the latter is a perversion of justice.

Knowing that you cannot participate in a protest anonymously, if the police are still there visibly videotaping people, asking for identification etc - they are knowingly trying to intimidate the public and discourage them from protesting.

Would it be helpful to the police for nobody to ever be allowed to be anonymous...because it's easier to track them down? Sure. Is it justified and reasonable - not necessarily.

Personally i think it's one of the harsh and stupid German laws. Protesting without masking is like voting without polling booth. There is a good reason why election are considered "anonymous". The same should apply to rallies, because otherwise you have to fear repression from officials,company,colleagues or even family, just for expressing your opinion.
especially if (not only dangerous) demonstrations are preceded by a police CCTV van, and at the sides every 25-50m a team of police officers with cameras. And yeah, they are of course allowed to mask and hide their identity.

Another orwellesque thing is the "Schutzwaffe or Passivbewaffnung" literally "protection weapon or passive arms" which means you are not allowed to wear motorcycle helmet or even hold it in the hand, goggles, "thick leather clothes", in short everything what can probably complicate the job of the police. in newer events, even a painter suit and side banners longer than 1.50m are forbidden in some cities.

Berlin recently introduced legislation that requires police officers to wear an ID number visibly, in other states this is also being discussed.

I believe it is reasonable to forbid wearing a mask during protests just as it reasonable that police officers can be identified during all times. Nobody, neither police nor protesters, should ever get the feeling that they are not accountable for their actions. This feeling is the root of most unnecessary violence and should be addressed at both sides.

We have a similar law in Greece, called "koukoulonomos"(hoodie law). You all saw how useful it was to prevent riots and violence. On the other hand they have already arrested and prosecuted random people as scapegoats for wearing a hoodie.

As a Brit, I'm just really impressed about the ease of access of all this up to date information on bills in progress, and the representatives' speeches advocating them. Fantastic execution of freedom of information.

I think that the legislative push is likely, "Protestors start behaving violently, so we need to be able to identify them so they can be incarcerated." It's crap, I know--- the problem is that politicians eat that crap up.

But any lawful assembly can turn into an unlawful assembly. Wear a mask to a lawful assembly = fine. Someone other than you breaks a window for no reason = whoops, you get arrested for wearing a mask at an unlawful assembly.

I, for having done LOTS of protests (I'm french, it's in our blood) under two motivations:

every bill I protested was something I was personally against

It's fun to protest in the streets with close friends, yelling and chanting to show how powerful a mass of people can be

Only one thing fucked up a lot of those strikes: The fuckers that go to strikes to cause havoc

Now I've never been against a good poking a prodding, I've already charged at the police branding wooden signs, and got gased dozens of times and sticked onced (By the medical police, that beats you to health with his magic stick)
It's all in good fun, the problem is the masked fuckers that come to hit other strikers, steal, break windows and cars, steal shit, set stuff on fire, AND THAT CANNOT BE FOUND BECAUSE THEY ARE MASKED

Now If you are a PROUD striker that knows and assumes what he is protesting against, this bill should be no problem for you...

Extra Life Pro Tip
If you go on a strike, carry a cloth on which you have squeezed a lemon, keep it in reach, and cover your mouth if directly gased, it almost nullifies the tear gas (the only time I covered my face were during the gasings :D)

There is also the issue of the riot police not wearing their identification tags. They are full suited in riot gear that hide their faces. Will they be charged for breaking the law? What about the undercover cops, hiding within the ranks of protesters, that instigate problems and then dive for cover amongst their fellow riot squad? Will they be charged for wearing a face covering?

I'm not sure if you've been to any of these protests or not, but here is the scenario. A lot of hooligans come there with the express wish to cause havoc, break stuff and have a fight with the police or anyone they can find. They come there wearing masks from the begining, cause most events like these are since recently heavily filmed and monitored, so after the crime was commited, people can be identified and brought to justice. This law would allow police to ban such assholes from joining protests (even the peaceful ones) if they intend to conceal their identity all the time. Such people would be removed from the crowds from the very start.

Sure this law wouldn't solve all the problems, but as it is now, the police don't have any powers to identify crooks and all they can do is just stand there and watch jerks destroying other peoples' property knowing that they probably won't be able to catch them...

This law would allow police to ban such assholes from joining protests (even the peaceful ones) if they intend to conceal their identity all the time. Such people would be removed from the crowds from the very start.

No. Read the article. This prohibition on masks only comes into effect once the protest is deemed unlawful.

There are MANY illegal things that a protestor can do that shouldn't be illegal.

For example, people who protest against anti-cannabis legislation could publicly pack and smoke joints or whatever. These people could be prosecuted if they could easily be identified.

You are an idiot if you accept any such legislation because it doesn't personally affect you because you personally don't do anything illegal.

Also: People who wreak havoc won't be stopped by some silly legislation. They will wear masks regardless. This law is totally ineffective against what it (in your opinion) wants to target while restricting everyone's rights.

I’ve been to protests and political events where police use a list of photos to target individuals for arrest on spurious charges (or just beat them and them leave in the street). This is supposedly a list of “repeat offenders,” but most of them have never been charged with an offense: it’s really just a list of people who’ve attended multiple protests and/or are suspected of being “leaders.” And I know law-abiding people who wear masks only to avoid this sort of targeting.

It doesn't work like that... "what is wrong" is becoming more and more subjective, subject to LAWS, not morals or basic human decency. I want to be free to express myself in any way I want. Expression is not a threat, if we were all free to express ourselves we wouldn't have governments. There would be as much crime as there is now and probably less war.

Don't be afraid - means having the ability to stand up for yourself. These laws are meant to make certain forms of standing up illegal. The governments are really this afraid of their own people??? REALLY? GOOD. If they're afraid they're the ones with something to hide. Those cocksuckers wear masks every day they go into work, talk on TV, talk to their constituents. Unmask parliament first. Unmask Stephen Harper... all those self-interested pricks.

The problem with protests is that they can be corrupted. Just stop putting up with this shit plain and simple, in every day life, not just when you're out protesting. Dedicate your lives to freedom.

Not only does this mean they can abuse this law and arrest people who aren't protesting, but why the hell shouldn't we be allowed to wear a mask?

Germany has this law as well but police usually permit wearing masks as long as the protest is peaceful.

I think the reason for banning masks at protests is the phenomenon of deindividuation which is a pretty interesting concept in social psychology. Simply said: people lose self-awareness in large groups. A mask increases the degree of deindividuation which can quickly lead to more aggressive group actions due to the decreased self-awareness of the individuals forming the group.

Plus there are issues with identifying people who misbehave (people abusing legitimate protests to incite violence against the police, like the black bloc)

The effects of deindividuation can be best seen during Marti Gras in New Orleans. The entire concept behind the event is to party hard without regrets due to the ability to hide behind the mask.

I agree that masks most certainly allows for common mischief to occur unchecked, but to say it also incites violence is another story. Those that wear masks and become agressive do not all of a sudden express violent tendencies just from wearing the mask. They likely have had such tendencies to begin with.

People can try to commit crimes like pickpocketing without being recognised. It is already illegal to wear masks at demonstrations in Germany. Demonstrations in masks need a special permission. The Scientology protests some years ago were allowed by officials to do that because the thread that Scientology uses the identity to protesters to harass them in private live.

What's wrong with the KKK wearing masks during a protest, or with them protesting in the first place? Just because they are racist, degenerate fuckers doesn't mean it's okay to purposefully infringe on their right to protest peacefully by skirting around the edges of the constitution.

Part of the reason why the KKK was so effective was they were anonymous. Nobody knew who they were, so no-one could retaliate. It's asymmetric warfare.

By the same token, police must wear visible identification, such as badges. In a situation like a riot, perhaps high-visibility badges (perhaps a shirt with a high-contrast ID) should be used, so it's easier to identify bad cops.

Why would anyone need to retaliate? If they're protesting peacefully then there isn't an issue and no one needs to know who they are. If they're protesting violently then it doesn't matter who they are, they can be arrested with or without a mask and booked as "John/Jane Doe" if necessary.

Police should be required to wear high visibility uniforms because they work for the government and they have authority over ordinary citizens. Anyone granted extra authority needs to have their authority monitored.

I just had a thought: police officers should have their name in big letters on the back of their uniforms, like football players.

In many parts of the southern United states, when the KKK was at its prime it was not unusual for most of the town's police, councilmen, mayor, etc to be klansmen. It was for this very reason that the Klan was able to last so long on their campaign, because there was for a long time no direct power to stop them.

Part of the reason why the KKK was so effective was they were anonymous.

No, they were effective because people were highly fucking racist and supported it. You don't even need laws to ban the masks. Let a group of KKK dudes walk down the street with their masks on today...they will be ostracized to no end.

This is already illegal in Sweden, with some if-statements of course. Something like this:

"It is only prohibited if there is interference with public order at demonstrations, or if there is an immediate risk of such interference"

There is apparently also a way to get permission to cover your face, not sure how and why. Perhaps if you are horribly disfigured or are using masks as a part of the demonstration? And of course religious people get a free pass

Fines or prison up to 6 months, most likely fines I think. No idea if it is enforced, they probably tack it on if they arrest you for other stuff. I always see masked people at demonstrations, so it doesn't stop people of course.

Edit: Oh wait, I looked up how you could get permission to cover your face at public gatherings. It seems to be for circus professionals, wtf. Not sure, whatever I doubt you could get permission to cover yourself at any demonstration where you would actually want to.

Just wear black suits, hats, beards, and curled sideburns like Hasidic Jews. If done well, no-one would recognize you and you would not be accused of wearing a mask unless you were arrested. Plus it would be very confusing if everyone there did it. ;-)

To put a perspective on things: Here in Germany, this has been law for over twenty-five years now. Only when I read the comments I first realized that this is not, in fact, a common provision. I'm kind of surprised by that. The lawmakers argued that the ability to prosecute a crime that may be committed by a protestor is more important than the protestors wish for anonymity. If you stand up for something, you should be proud to "show face", quite literally.

Arguably, the punishment is "only" up to one year in prison or much more commonly, a fine.

Well Germany is very crazy with such laws, it's also against the law to wear an uniform at demonstrations there.

However, as for the masks, the recent international demonstrations against the government in Syria have shown the need to protest anonymously. It was in the news here in Switzerland that some Syrians who live here and protested here, were identified by the Syrian government. The next day, their relatives in Syria got beaten up or killed. Fuck that

Solidarity and the power of symbolism. To take a classic example, four or five years ago, when you showed up in a Guy Fawkes mask in front of a Scientology building they knew exactly who you were, exactly what you were doing, and that in half an hour there would be fifty of you. I wouldn't take any pride in "showing my face" during a protest. I would take pride in having done a good deed however I could, and wearing a mask might in this case help me do that good deed better.

Just because people are used to it doesn't make it ok. Why shouldn't you be allowed to protest anonymously? If you are arrested, you are still arrested. It's not the government's place to say you must show face; laws like this unnecessarily encroach on the freedoms of all people- even if you don't protest yourself.

"I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do."

He often speaks of using violence against those that are violent towards you. Which is kind of the opposite of those other guys. He advocated every "negro" listening to him to purchase a shotgun and rifle to defend themselves when they're attacked (their rights were attacked).

They didn't live in a time of mass surveillance, where CCTV is everywhere, storage space is cheap, facial recognition software is getting better every day and background checks are being outsourced to companies who have access to your social network data.

There's a very fucking real chance that you'll be refused for a job in your 30s because you protested in your teens, because your tendency to rebel makes you a 5% more risky choice than the next candidate. It's not safe to show your face today.

being anonymous is just as powerful. Its symbolic and let people feel stronger and more willing to protest as they can feel part of the group. This can also be abused and the mental aspect can allow for people to just get plain old mob mentality and wreck things, but Harper is like Obama taking away freedoms that we have and if we don't stand up for them what will we have left when he loses next election.

Personally i think it's one of the harsh and stupid German laws. Protesting without masking is like voting without polling booth. There is a good reason why election are considered "anonymous". The same should apply to rallies, because otherwise you have to fear repression from officials,company,colleagues or even family, just for expressing your opinion.
especially if (not only dangerous) demonstrations are preceded by a police CCTV van, and at the sides every 25-50m a team of police officers with cameras. And yeah, they are of course allowed to mask and hide their identity.

Another orwellesque thing is the "Schutzwaffe or Passivbewaffnung" literally "protection weapon or passive arms" which means you are not allowed to wear motorcycle helmet or even hold it in the hand, goggles, "thick leather clothes", in short everything what can probably complicate the job of the police. in newer events, even a painter suit and side banners longer than 1.50m are forbidden in some cities. I think that Schutzwaffe and Passivbewaffnung is doubleplusungood. ;)

this law is ridiculous how do you prove any intent to actually commit a crime...this is insane. there must be bigger things that the government could be doing instead of this crap....i really do not understand our government any more ladies and gents...its just...ugh.

No joke, I was once arrested and charged with trespassing, as a felony, because it was "trespassing with intent to commit a crime." Since I was trespassing essentially by accident, my lawyer asked what crime I was trying to commit. They said the crime I intended to commit was trespassing. Argh.

Thankfully that charge got thrown out. My "up to" 23 years in prison ended up with some good ol' community service.

If that's true, then we can get around it by wearing hats with infrared LEDs in the brim that strobe. You won't be wearing a mask, and the light (which people can't see, but cameras can't help but see) will obscure your face, rendering this software impotent. We just have to stay a step ahead of these guys.

I know someone who lives in an anarchist house. Just because he lives there, the police have him flagged as an enemy of the state. They harass him a lot. Honestly I think it's going to drive him to actual violence pretty damn quick.

It's a collective where a bunch of crust punks pretend they're making a statement by removing themselves from society. (And by removing themselves from society, I mean they refuse to hold jobs, pay rent (most houses are squatted), and obey noise ordinances by holding concerts all time of the night) They also typically embody the exact sort of selfishness they claim to protest.

Source: Living in one for 6 months and currently living 3 houses away from one. It was one of my favorite all-time experiences, and there is no chance in hell I'd subject myself to those living conditions ever again.

A lot of dumpster diving, some hold down part time jobs at local bike shops and a couple local grocery stores. Dumpstering bike parts and broken bikes from thrift stores can make a lot of money if you're savvy enough to fix them up and sell them and willing to get arrested.

We had strong musical talent and there was a lot of success making money by busking. Playing Sundance for 10 hours a day nets around 5 grand for a full band. It's freezing and miserable but profitable.

The good time part was all about the community. Very close-knit group packed into a house that was way too small for us, living in pretty poor conditions, avoiding things like TV. Had a peace love and harmony vibe until petty bullshit broke the house into factions.

Edit: By refuse to hold down jobs, I mean the kind of jobs your average person finds acceptable and responsible. Working 10 hours a week to make the absolute bare minimum to live off of.

The problem is that it's difficult to say when a protest becomes unlawful.

Take the Toronto g20 protests as an example: there were many different factions there, and not all of them were destroying public property. The ones who did might have been in entirely different locations, but all of a sudden the police will start acting as though the protest writ large is unlawful.

Now everyone in a mask has become a criminal, and they probably aren't aware.

Exactly - it's pretty much a better organization and presentation of data.
It's nice that people can follow, for example, every legislator based on their own ideology on Canada's site. The collaborative format works like a chronological time line and shows the debate as it progresses as each legislator chimes in and votes are made.

Also, OpenCongress is a non profit, which relies on Govtrack which is a private business which relies on the antiquated THOMAS system provided by the Library of Congress. That raises all kinds of potential problems for accountability and getting real time and accurate data.

Hopefully this might clear things up for people. They can already pretty much arrest you for covering your face and concealing your identity at a protest anyway, here's how: . S. 351 (2) (reads Section 351, Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada to clarify) states: Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. The issue here is with the intent, and the onus is on the crown to prove it. But in a protest you could be charged with mischief: S. 430 (1) Everyone commits mischief who wilfully (a) destroys or damages property; (b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective; (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of, enjoyment or operation of property; or (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property. There are a few other subsections dealing with other kinds of mischief. This is a hybrid offence of indictable not exceeding 2 years or summary conviction (S. 430 (4)), and is treated as indictable until the crown chooses how to proceed. Soooo, they can get you with intent to commit mischief, you went to the protest with your face covered with the intent to destroy property and not get caught. This bill would just make it easier to charge people and fast-track the process. Hope this was helpful! Source: I have the criminal code in front of me :)

The only instance of masked protesting that I feel is done because they are a bunch of cowards is KKK Rallies. But even then, they are entitled to think and do whatever they believe, as arrogant as it may be.

I just want to point out that it is not just governments that take advantage of peoples faces during protests. Employers and vigilantes seeking vigilante justice also have free reign. I for one am afraid to protest, not because I am afraid of spending a night in jail, but because I might lose my job and unable to support my family or people will go after my family or friends who are innocent of any crimes.

I really need to start a business and become an employer. I could employ all of the people who are afraid of their bosses finding out they protested something.

As long as you are doing it peacefully, I don't care what you do in your free time, and it sounds like I would have a lot of people signing up to work for me if only so they don't have to hide that the like gay people or hate abortion or think the moon landing was a hoax.

More companies should advertise this as a job feature so that you know where it is safe to work.

If I catch them doing it at work or taking work time to go to the protest then, well, that's a different story. But on their own time is fine.

Besides, it doesn't seem like a good idea to protest something that would help their job (Assuming that my company supports some legislation because it is good for the company). But if they feel that strongly about something they should sure as hell protest it as much as they want.

I would even expect them to tell me that they don't like it and why so we can have a reasonable debate on the subject. Perhaps I am wrong?

I actually thought that this was standard in most countries. In Denmark, we have this:

“One, who in connection with meetings, assemblies, parades or other public happenings, moves with a face that is fully or partially covered by hood, mask, or paint, in a way that is suitable to prevent identification, is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to 6 months.”

Australia's voting through legislation to cut tax-breaks for the wealthy to provide dental care to low income earners. If you listen carefully you can actually hear the scraping noise as I near the bottom of the barrel there.

Countries who don't use proportional representation (I know the Senate kinda does in Aus, but still) often seem to just not understand the idea of coalition/minority governments. In many parts of the world, it is rare to have anything else (just look across the ditch if you're in Aussie. Proportional representation was the best thing to happen to NZ politics in a long time).

I am a reasonable person, but the trivial laws meant to scare people out of exercising their rights piss me off so bad. I utilize my second amendment. I don't protest because if I was unlawfully arrested I would mar the rest of the protest with my grotesque display of violence, but I digress. Many will disagree with me, but i will leave you with this. “Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable.” - JFK

personally i wouldn't wear a mask to a protest anyway. the point is that you're there because you believe in something and you want people to see this. unless it's symbolic, i feel it turns a protest of everyday people in to an anonymous mob.

This sounds like a good idea. The very reason things go out of control in riots, and even some protests in deindividuation. This is where an individual is more inclined to act as part of a group and do outrageous things because their face is hidden. It happens in gangs as well, and robberies.

This also applies to police, for instance one of the reasons that the officer who pepper sprayed those people in the face would have been that he was in uniform with a big mask on, so he felt he could only be identified as another policeman.

We have this in Greece. It WILL be used against you and anyone else protesting. The way it works here is that any offense (misdemeanors etc) during a protest, gets instantly bumped to a criminal offense if you're "concealing your face".

This means:

You cannot protect yourself from teargas, no damp scarves, no gas mask nothing. They're basically saying "either shut up and take it or go home".

Bullshit charges that are hard to defend yourself against but were relatively insignificant (disturbing the peace) now carry a lot of weight. This means the average protester risks a whole lot more when he takes to the streets.

Also keep in mind that this is selectively enforced, the police are obviously exempt from it as are the various reporters, undercover provocateurs etc etc.

Most of the comments here seen to be written w/o an appreciation of context.

Yes, we know laws against wearing face coverings @ protests have already been in place in various countries for decades.

And yes - on the surface - there seems to be some good reasons for having a law like this.

The problem is a contextual one, as to the political environment a law like this is appearing in, and the kinds of technology available to state officials, wealthy private bodies, etc.

This law is appearing in the midst of the global emergence of popular, democratic uprising. It appears in an age of increasingly reliable facial recognition software. And it is being proposed by a government that has demonstrated a keen interest in general "police state" measures, intentional abuse of law, and secrecy.

So shrugging and saying this is "no big deal" because some liberal social-democratic welfare states in western Europe established such measures 20-30 yrs ago completely misses the point.

the main reasons masks taped over badges are worn in a riot are for the purpose of committing crimes or intimidation. Wearing disguises in such chaotic situations emboldens offenders by giving them the anonymity to commit crimes without fear of consequences. They know that they are not likely to face prosecution if they cannot be identified.